Replies

UNITED STATES CODE ANNOTATED

THE ORGANIC LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE OF 1776

Did I just read that right? The Declaration of Independence is at the head of the United States Code? Now, what does that document say, hmmm? Ah, I remember now:

WHEN in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

Now, if I can remember correctly one of the founders said something regarding this Declaration and Secession. Well knock me down and call me a unionist, here it is:

With these qualifications, we may admit the same right as vested in the people of every state in the Union, with reference to the General Government, which was exercised by the people of the United Colonies, with reference to the Supreme head of the British empire, of which they formed a part - and under these limitations, have the people of each state in the Union a right to secede from the confederated Union itself.

John Q Adams

>> and under these limitations, have the people of each state in the Union a right to secede from the confederated Union itself. <<

Gee, that's funny. I seem to recall the United States establishing itself as a Republic, not a Confederation. Whatever could that John Adams have been referring? Oh, wait, that's right! That quote is from 1777, written a full ten years before the Constitution... about the time of the Articles of Confederation. Seems those didn't work out at all, because they were too weak, and the founders had to work some way of forging a more perfect union.

But, now that you mention the Declaration of Independence:

"When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."

Let's see... what were those causes? "We want to be able to legally flay the skin off our slaves for no cause whatsoever, without facing any question from any legal authority, and when such slaves run away, we want to be able to invade other states so as to violently recapture our possession, regardless of the rights of self-determiniation of those other states." Well, not exactly.

Let's read some more, shall we?

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government.
The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

Wait a second... Go back... what was that bit about Men having a duty to overthrow tyrannical governments?

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Wow. So when Men recognized that slavery was far from dying off as more modern means of agriculture had arrived, but instead had evolved into something far more sinister and diabolical, they had a duty to destroy such a government? Which side of the Civil War are you citing this in defense of? Oh, but I taunt.

And you'll notice the phrasing, "it is the Right of the People to abolish it, and to institute new government... It is their right, it is their duty to throw off such government." You see, the colonies saw the British rule over them as a government separate from the British domestic government, which, in fact, had recognized to its own people the rights to which they aspired. That's why they called it "the American Revolution" and not a "British Civil War." They were abolishing the evil government. They didn't assert the right to divide the British government, forming a separate state within that portion of Great Britain which lie in the Americas (for indeed there was no such portion of Great Britain). They asserted the duty to abolish that tyrannical government imposed by Great Britain.

And they asserted that what gave them such a duty was the tyranny to which they were subject. And they recognized that it was necessary to declare before the world precisely what intolerable tyranny they were subject to.

The Confederate States, on the other hand, were fearful that the Union might some day prevent them from the capricious intent of flaying their subjects' skin from their flesh. Not exactly the same thing.